However, since only the prosecutor appealed on the guilty portion on the ground of unfair sentencing, and does not dispute the acquittal portion on the grounds, the acquittal portion on the grounds of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense among the parties.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991; 2008Do8922, Dec. 11, 2008). Therefore, with respect to the part of innocence as to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court’s conclusion of innocence is followed, and the lower court’s judgment is not separately determined at the trial, and the scope of this court’s trial is limited to the portion of

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a prison term of six months, a suspended sentence of two years, and a community service order of forty hours) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. In light of the judgment, the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the machines of more than 8 points out of 15 points of machines offered as security to the victim corporation D, which are disadvantageous to the Defendant. The fact that the nature of the crime is not good, and the value of the machines disposed of by the Defendant exceeds 300 million won, etc. are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the Defendant appears to be somewhat able to take into account the motive and circumstance leading up to the commission of the crime; and (c) the Defendant’s penal power exceeding the fine and the absence of the same kind of force, etc. are favorable to the Defendant; and (d) in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment; (b) motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (c) all sentencing factors indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as

Therefore, prosecutors.